Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Rosemary


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

At the last meeting a motion was made to give $650 to a Charity was not carried, then 4 more identical motions, except for amount followed, and finally a motion to give $300 was carried. How do I record them in the minutes? All motions or only the motion that was successful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I (subject to argument from my friends here) would just record the last, adopted, version of the motion.

What you did, or the way you did it, rather, was not proper. The charitable proposal should have been presented as a main motion with a blank slot, and then a series of proposals would be presented to "fill the blank" - p. 162 ff. - with those various amounts. When one amount was adopted, then the main motion would be adopted.

That would come out the same as what you did do, so I'd just let the minutes show the final result, as would be the case if the proper filling the blank process was followed.

How does Rosemary (or her baby?) fit into this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I (subject to argument from my friends here) would just record the last, adopted, version of the motion.

The book disagrees, regardless of what your friends say.

What you did, or the way you did it, rather, was not proper. The charitable proposal should have been presented as a main motion with a blank slot, and then a series of proposals would be presented to "fill the blank" - p. 162 ff. - with those various amounts. When one amount was adopted, then the main motion would be adopted.

No, when one amount is adopted, then you vote on the main motion (whether to make the donation at all) assuming no other secondary motions pop up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I'd say the four identical motions were all out of order, (RONR 11, p. 343 ll. 24-26), although Reconsidering could have been an option at some point. That said, with no Point of Order raised at the time, and no apparent continuining breach, the final decision (motion #5) stands, and all motions should be recorded in the minutes. (P. 469 l. 13ff)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one amount was adopted, then the main motion would be adopted.

Clearly my sketchy syntax led all my friends, or some of them, astray.

Obviously I know that after the blank is filled, then the members turn to the main motion for further possible consideration. If the members liked what they saw, "then the main motion would be adopted".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I'd say the four identical motions were all out of order, (RONR 11, p. 343 ll. 24-26)

Doesn't the fact that the last motion was adopted indicate that, at least for this group, the later motions (or at least one of them) did not "present practically the same question as a motion previously decided at the same session"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the fact that the last motion was adopted indicate that, at least for this group, the later motions (or at least one of them) did not "present practically the same question as a motion previously decided at the same session"?

Isn't it equally possible that the group is simply unaware of the "practically the same question" rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that the members did not think that all the questions were practically the same, because they rejected the first few but adopted the last.

That fact that a subsequent motion was adopted (or even defeated) doesn't alter the fact that it was "practically the same question" as a previously defeated motion.

Intuiting from the information provided, the members didn't reject the second, third, fourth and fifth motions because they were "practically the same question" as the original motion, they rejected them based on the amount specified in the motions.

If the second motion had been for $300, it would have been adopted, because that amount was acceptable to majority. Would that motion not have been "practically the same question" (as the $650 motion) simply because it was adopted?

Gotta go with Josh on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That fact that a subsequent motion was adopted (or even defeated) doesn't alter the fact that it was "practically the same question" as a previously defeated motion.

Huh? Of course the fact that a subsequent motion was defeated is no indication that it was substantially different than an earlier motion.

Unless this group changed its mind at random or for some unknown reason, there must have been something substantially different about the motion that was adopted in comparison with the ones that were rejected; otherwise, they would have rejected it as well.

Now, if you want to argue about whether or not the intermediate motions (the ones that they did, in fact, reject) represented practically the same question as the first one, then we may have something to discuss. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the second motion had been for $300, it would have been adopted, because that amount was acceptable to majority. Would that motion not have been "practically the same question" (as the $650 motion) simply because it was adopted?

Now, if you want to argue about whether or not the intermediate motions (the ones that they did, in fact, reject) represented practically the same question as the first one, then we may have something to discuss. :)

Though apparently not clear, that was my point.

Yeah, it can be very unclear when your point is the opposite of what you actually write. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it can be very unclear when your point is the opposite of what you actually write. :(

Reviewing my original post, I can see that I should have written "five subsequent motions" instead of "four identical motion" (which was a poorly worded reference to the OP). That said, and with the citation I provided as explanatory support, I don't see that I contradicted my position.

I regret any confusion that resulted from my lack of clarity.

I think this horse has one more good whack left in it. It's yours if you want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...